Surely you can see the difference between a high profile sequel and a high profile cross over(very rare) event. For example, as modest as Spidey and Wolverine box office are these days. If next year saw a crossover between the two...it wouldn't yield an 'average of such and such/such and such sequel'. It would be a high profile crossover between two of the biggest characters in comics/cinema today. In short, I don't think you are looking at it right.
If the Xmen showed up in the Hobbit...cross over event.

That being said there is no accounting for a wolverine reboot in that scenario, and this is def a new batman. All I can say is Bale did little to own his role as Jackman has(unlike bat's there has only ever been Hugh). Moreover Ben seems like a more bankable box office persona than Bale imo.

Moreover Ben seems like a more bankable box office persona than Bale imo.

I guess I don't follow movie news enough, but I have never thought of Affleck as a bankable star. I'm not sure I'm understanding the meaning of that since for me he doesn't seem to have the same sort of star power as say...Brad Pitt.

I guess I don't follow movie news enough, but I have never thought of Affleck as a bankable star. I'm not sure I'm understanding the meaning of that since for me he doesn't seem to have the same sort of star power as say...Brad Pitt.

Whatever you think of Ben as a leading man and how popular he is or isn't. I'm talking relative to Bale. The indie guy with no films outside batman I can think of being all that big.

The marketing campaign was tremendous and wide reaching and personally the best I had seen since Avatar. Simply blanket marketing and a massive 150 million dollar marketing budget and 170 million dollars worth of product tie-ups and so many tours and displays around the U.S. and memorablie galore with tickets or standins or coloring books or toys or clothes or blankets or anything.

It was insane.

The result of that? 660 million worldwide.

Take in the production budget of 225 million and it does seem ok but not great.

People should realize that their anticipation for a movie is not equal to GA's anticipation for the movie.

I think those saying it will make more than Avengers have lost the plot.

Many....many people thought MOS would make 1 billion WW....easily nonetheless...for a reboot??

dnno1, thank you for posting that! That's what I wanted to read because I had read all the initial things that said they were happy...blah blah.

Now, SR is a good example of what might constitute a failure. It didn't need to make a billion even then though there were people (me included...lol) who thought it would.

A billion would be nice, but I hope people know that's may not be needed for it to actually be a success in the studios eyes.

A rule of thumb is that a film should make about 1.83 times more than it cost to develop and produce. If they were expecting the film to make $500 million or more, then they must have sunk more than $270 million into its development and production. "Superman/Batman" will have the same rule applying to it. Even if it doesn't make $1 billion, it will have to make 1.83 times more than it cost to produce it to get another film.

A rule of thumb is that a film should make about 1.83 times more than it cost to develop and produce. If they were expecting the film to make $500 million or more, then they must have sunk more than $270 million into its development and production. "Superman/Batman" will have the same rule applying to it. Even if it doesn't make $1 billion, it will have to make 1.83 times more than it cost to produce it to get another film.

Not necessarily. With any product that has expectations attached to it, there will always be a desire for a high box office gross. So if it doesn't meet the figure they're wanting, they may just go back to a regular MOS sequel, or go back to Batman solos.

This film, like MOS, is a tent-pole film intended to be a backbone of Warner's future line-up. I imagine that if it doesn't make at least $800 million, that plans for a Justice League film could change.

I know this isn't a completely apt comparison, but look at Jack Reacher. Even with it being a Tom Cruise, receiving generally good reviews and only costing $60 million, Paramount was very reticent about greenlighting a sequel, and didn't do it until it made over $200 mil, which is over 3x its cost.

A studio always has expectations, and if they aren't met, even if it's brand name, a sequel is by no means guaranteed.

What I have heard most money guys say is that a film should make double of the total of its production and marketing budget to break even.

So according to that, MOS with a production budget of 225 million and marketing budget of 150 million dollars would basically need to make 750 million WW to break even. This is theatrically. Films of course break even and turn in a profit on home rentals and broadcast deals too.

The reason for above is because when you hear 200 million dollar opening weekend, only about 50% of it is going to the studio. Less in foreign countries.

__________________

“A sense of the fundamental decencies is parcelled out unequally at birth.”~ F. Scott Fitzgerald ~

I guess I don't follow movie news enough, but I have never thought of Affleck as a bankable star. I'm not sure I'm understanding the meaning of that since for me he doesn't seem to have the same sort of star power as say...Brad Pitt.

He's not. He's a good actor, and an even better director, but he's not a box office draw. His biggest films to date are Armageddon where he was a secondary character and Pearl Harbor.

However Affleck is definitely the biggest draw of this film for better or worse.

__________________"If you step out that door, you're an Avenger" - Hawkeye

Not necessarily. With any product that has expectations attached to it, there will always be a desire for a high box office gross. So if it doesn't meet the figure they're wanting, they may just go back to a regular MOS sequel, or go back to Batman solos.

This film, like MOS, is a tent-pole film intended to be a backbone of Warner's future line-up. I imagine that if it doesn't make at least $800 million, that plans for a Justice League film could change.

I know this isn't a completely apt comparison, but look at Jack Reacher. Even with it being a Tom Cruise, receiving generally good reviews and only costing $60 million, Paramount was very reticent about greenlighting a sequel, and didn't do it until it made over $200 mil, which is over 3x its cost.

A studio always has expectations, and if they aren't met, even if it's brand name, a sequel is by no means guaranteed.

Mark my word, that will be the case. If "Superman/Batman" costs the same as Man of Steel did (around $225 million) then they would only need to make more than $411 million to get a sequel (not $1 billion) even though fans will be comparing it to Marvel's "Avengers" or "The Dark Knight" as far as box-office. With that being said, I do not expect that this will will be produced for anything less than $350 million, so the bar will be higher (more like $650 million or more).

Honestly, its best to ignore the marketing budget when guestimating profitability. There is too much funny money accounting in the marketing budget, such that the actual number of real dollars is greatly exaggerated. Whereas production budget is production budget, since you actually do have to pay salaries and supply costs and such.

Honestly, its best to ignore the marketing budget when guestimating profitability. There is too much funny money accounting in the marketing budget, such that the actual number of real dollars is greatly exaggerated. Whereas production budget is production budget, since you actually do have to pay salaries and supply costs and such.

I hear what you are saying. Marketing is marketing and like you said it would seem funny money is accounted for when it comes to that aspect. Perhaps it should not be accounted for when it comes to calculating profitability of a film. The production budget is where the end profit margin should be equated to. That is why maintaining production budget discipline is so important when it comes to these tentpole franchise films. Especially the ones that are not established franchises. See John Carter and The Lone Ranger etc...

Well you can bet that the trailers are going to be nuts, and this movie already has damn near everyone's attention. So far I am pretty sure there is nothing the weekend after and I don't think a studio is going to throw something in that slot either.

I don't think Terminator is going to do numbers, could be wrong but I don't think it will be big competition in its 3rd week. Minions has already been pushed back once, maybe they change it again, if not I can see that taking some away but not too much.

MOS had to go against The Purge (kinda had a lot of buzz) This is the End, WWZ, Monsters U, The Heat, White House Down, Despicable me 2, and The Lone Ranger in its first 3 weeks.

As of now it looks like this will have Minions (I expect that to make 700 mil), then 2 weeks by itself, then Antman (450mil), Assassins Creed and Bourne (I dont think Assassins Creed and Bourne are going to be big) and Smurfs 3 (350mil).

That doesn't look too bad to me even in a packed year. So I could see it getting that billion mark especially with even slightly better critic reviews. But I think for it to be a "success" just 800 Mil, anything more than that is gravy. WB might be able to make their money back from simply selling merchandise for this movie leading up to it.

WB marketed the **** out of MOS and they'll no doubt up the ante with this next film. However, it's way too early to say. If I had to put a say in it:
$990 Million if it sucks
$1.1-1.2 Billion if it gets a MOS like or slightly better critical reception
$1.5 Billion if it gets very positive reviews/critical acclaim.

Again, just speculation on my part.

__________________#UNITETHESEVEN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Comics fans have been spoiled ****ing rotten over the years, and as soon as DC doesn't kiss their asses as efficiently as Marvel does, they throw internet s***fits. I'm over that stuff.

The reason for above is because when you hear 200 million dollar opening weekend, only about 50% of it is going to the studio. Less in foreign countries.

That's not true. Opening weekend is when the % of the gross is most heavily weighted towards the studio, and the scale slides each week towards the cinemas, so it could go like:

OW: 90% studio
2nd W: 80%
3rd W: 70%
4th W: 55%

and so on, and so forth. Some films actually open with 100% of the gross to the studio. A famous example is Star Wars- Episode II: Attack of the Clones. But on average, the total gross is only usually just over half to the studio.

__________________
*\S/T*"But that's the thing about Batman. Batman thinks of everything.""There's always a way. When the odds are impossible- do the impossible."

$350 million is actually a lot for a production budget, but since Batman is in this picture, I believe they could easily get away with spending that much and still making a profit.

Hmmm....it will be interesting to find what the budget actually is. That seems high to me. If they made Avatar for less than that then I would expect WB to put the kibosh down anything too extravagant.